New interview

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Thaaaaang yoooou Veeeence.

 

[xemous]

Arcanums graphics were beautiful.

 

[Paranoid Jack]

You say Arcanum looked good? It looked like shit. Not just because of 'brown' theme and the like... it's animations sucked, for instance.
Anyway, Fallout had much better graphics then Arcanum. Simple does not mean 'bad'.
Unfortunately, Arcanum's graphics was both simple AND bad, most of the time.

I don't think Arcanum looked like shit. Not then and not now. Yeah, it had a dark theme and they used a lot of dark colors to help with that but to say it looked like shit is a bit much. Unless you mean because of all the shades of brown? But hey, it's your opinion.

You know the funny thing about it is the fact that even a good looking game (like Gothic 3) can turn some people off just because the damned graphics don't have that Disneyland feel to them. Or don't compare to the last game you just played. The damned Big O has made this an even bigger problem than before. Gameplay is always the most important part of any game. Or at least it should be.

And again this is not a statement toward you or anyone in particular just a statement in general terms as to what I think and/or feel. To me it seems to be a direct refection of what kind of person you are in real life. Do you judge everything by how it shines and sparkles or do you judge it by it's over-all worth and character? Maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm reading too much into it but it sure seems that way with a lot of the gamers I know personally.

Yeah, there are a lot of other factors that weigh in to what kind of games each of us likes but usually a few key features make us interested, or not. And that "WOW" factor graphics wise is the big hook for most players.

 

[Elwro]

Arcanums graphics were beautiful.

 

[Araanor]

Oh? Reminiscing time?

Arcanum's visuals had some problems, like the animations and slightly odd models, but all in all I enjoyed the art direction. The portraits were beautiful when you got used to them, in contrast to the airbrushed pap of Baldur's Gate.

Fallout was tighter, in more than one way.

 

[Balor]

Well, I played Arcanum and liked it for being a good RPG, but sertainly not for being pretty.
It's landscapes looked Ok, and even good sometimes. But characters were UGLY. At least for me.
*shrugs*

 

[The_Nameless_Prick]

What games can you compare Arcanum to at the time of its release as far as graphics go? I know the game was released right before the xbox was, but lets talk pc. I can't think right off the top of my head any pc games that blew Arcanum's graphics right out of the water in 2001. Correct and criticise if I'm wrong.

 

[Balor]

Fallouts and Planescape: Torment.
Nuff said.

 

[Roqua]

What, it wasn't buggy and unstable then?

Yep.

Btw, is the site with the interviews down or something?

It's slow.

I disgaree, PtD was buggy from the get-go. But it had a lot to it. I loved it, but the bugs in it made me have to check walkthroughs to see if I was retarded or if it was a bug. I hate walkthroughs (or looking through the forum to see if others had problems with the same quest). It was definitely worth the money, and the game was fucking great despite all the bugs, but it certainly wasn't bug free at any time, or even close to it.